Could a law blogger "have any finer friend than Justice Antonin Scalia?" asks Joseph Schuman at Law Blog. It sometimes seems that the brilliant-but-quirky jurist is to legal news what the talented-but-quirky Michael Jackson is to celebrity news -- an endless source of fodder. Speaking to law students at the University of Connecticut yesterday, Scalia said that his 2004 decision not to recuse himself from a case involving Vice President Cheney was the "proudest thing" he has done on the Court, as reported by Associated Press.

Given that Scalia has no doubt done many "things" of which he should be proud, his choice of this has Norm Pattis at Crime & Federalism wondering "if he's off his rocker, or if his meds need readjusting." But Pattis is even more disturbed about what he calls Scalia's "anachronistic crusade," his adherence to constitutional originalism. Says Pattis:

"It is difficult to take Scalia's commitment to originalist seriously. He blasts those favoring a living constitution, arguing that such folks are too free to impose their meaning on age-old terms of constitutional text. Yet the decision he makes to adhere to the words of those long-dead is just as much of a choice. Frankly, I'd choose even a bad doctor trained this century over Benjamin Rush, a famous colonial physician. So would Scalia."

Comments

Scalia's 'Proudest Thing'

Could a law blogger "have any finer friend than Justice Antonin Scalia?" asks Joseph Schuman at Law Blog. It sometimes seems that the brilliant-but-quirky jurist is to legal news what the talented-but-quirky Michael Jackson is to celebrity news -- an endless source of fodder. Speaking to law students at the University of Connecticut yesterday, Scalia said that his 2004 decision not to recuse himself from a case involving Vice President Cheney was the "proudest thing" he has done on the Court, as reported by Associated Press.

Given that Scalia has no doubt done many "things" of which he should be proud, his choice of this has Norm Pattis at Crime & Federalism wondering "if he's off his rocker, or if his meds need readjusting." But Pattis is even more disturbed about what he calls Scalia's "anachronistic crusade," his adherence to constitutional originalism. Says Pattis:

"It is difficult to take Scalia's commitment to originalist seriously. He blasts those favoring a living constitution, arguing that such folks are too free to impose their meaning on age-old terms of constitutional text. Yet the decision he makes to adhere to the words of those long-dead is just as much of a choice. Frankly, I'd choose even a bad doctor trained this century over Benjamin Rush, a famous colonial physician. So would Scalia."